Do Canadians understand what combatting climate change means for them personally?

[Truenorth00]

We see a lot of complaining about the US quitting the Paris accords. Yet, in my personal relationships I see a ton of hypocrisy on the issue of fighting climate change. I see a ton of people saying the government should do something about it. I see very few people willing to accept the consequences of government programs required to change society to make Canada less carbon-intensive.

Using energy usage as analogous to CO2 emissions, here's how Canada's energy flow breakdown:

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/...011_CANADA.png

When it comes to behaviours on a personal level, these are things Canadians do that have a massive impact on climate change:

1) We have the the third largest homes on the planet:

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house

Only the US and Australia are larger. And most of them don't have to heat and light those homes for 6-8 months per year.

2) We have the third highest rate of driving, as defined by vehicle kilometres traveled per capita per year:

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/20...report_128.pdf

Given the fact that ~80% of Canada is urban, the geography excuse is pointless. Most of our driving is suburban, not rural residents who actually need to drive.

3) Canadians are among the top 10 meat consumers in the world:

https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm

And meat is terrible for climate change:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...limate-change/

Red meat is the worst:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/s...e-change-20264

So given all that we know about climate change and the impact of home size, driving, and meat consumption, here's what I see among friends and relatives:

1) Nothing matters more than a single family detached home. Even if it's a million dollars and they live in the GTA with some of the best transit in the country they'll still choose the large single family home over even an urban townhouse. Moreover, even when they do own homes, it's not energy efficiency or power upgrades (like rooftop solar or going all LED in the house) that come to mind. It's the new kitchen with the subway tiles, or spa tub in the bathroom that's more important.

2) Even in the GTA, some of them will drive up to 3 hrs per day (total) in traffic. And when it comes to a new car? Cheapest wins. That usually means no hybrid or electric. The idea of active transport such as biking, jogging or skateboarding to work is laughable to most. Even if they are 5 km away.

3) Meat consumption? This isn't even a question. Not only is meat consumption not questioned, unlike other cultures, there's no consumption of all the other parts of the animal to ensure that we get the most out of the animal killed.

4) Taxes. They want government to fix climate change. Yet, a transit levy of $13 is controversial in Toronto to upgrade the proposed LRT in Scarborough to subway. That's an extra $2 billion. A $2 toll to pay for the rebuild of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto saw a massive suburban backlash. What happens when we need to build spend $30-40 billion building High Speed Rail in Quebec-Windsor Corridor because that's where we have the highest aviation emissions in the country? Heck, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities thinks we need tens of billions in transit infrastructure just to repair what's there and keep up with population growth. Cutting emissions will definitely put us over the $100 billion mark in the next decade.

So given the above, I am inclined to believe that most Canadians are hypocrites on climate change (often me included too). When they say they want the government to do something, I am inclined to believe, what they really mean is that they want their neighbours to cut back, not themselves. I actually think there is going to be a backlash in this country when the carbon tax hits $50 per tonne in 2022. Especially when you pile it on top of high electricity rates in places like Ontario.

So what are you willing to do personally to combat climate change? How much of a smaller space would you accept? What would the travel time difference have to be for you to use transit instead of the car? How much more in taxes would you support to build the transit and intercity infrastructure to compete with the car? How much are you willing to cut back on meat? Particularly red meat which is the most damaging. If you want climate changed solved, do/did you envision make any changes to your lifestyle or anticipate an increased cost of living?

[MolsonExport]

I am inclined to believe that most Canadians are hypocrites on climate change (often me included too).

sadly, true.

I am very lean on driving...mostly bicycling to work. Unlike all my neighbors (upper middle class, and lower upper class families), we make do with one car (as opposed to three like the other households on my street). We recycle and compost diligently. But we have a large house, with an in-ground pool. Not very green, I suspect, on the balance.

[p_xavier]

"Oh you don't have your reusable bag? You should take your car instead of walking and leave the bags in your trunk, it would be much better for the environment!"

One of many feel-good stupid things regarding the environment.

[SteelTown]

I have a hybrid car (C-Max), I use my green bins, recycle, I have a rain barrel, bring my re-usable bags to do grocery shopping, drop off dead batteries to recycling centres like Staples. I try to do my best.

[240glt]

How much would you be willing to curtail your travel is another question I'd ask. I've got a lot of friends that think that just because they live a so-called "urban lifestyle" that they somehow have less of an impact on the environment, when those are the folks who are more likely to take long airplane trips, buy imported food items and spend more money on tech goods and such. So yes there is a ton of hypocrisy when it comes to this discussion

For us, we've spent tens of thousands in the past year upgrading the heating systems in our house and our rental property, upgraded windows and insulation, and more energy efficient appliances. We try not to buy food that's been imported from half way around the world and don't buy things that are over packaged. I also grow a substantial amount of our own vegetables in our garden. We recycle diligently, and we're not huge consumers otherwise. We live centrally and car pool to work, and live within easy walking distance to a grocery store, restaurants, etc.

The bad: We own two gas guzzlers (Toyota 4Runner and a Tacoma pickup) and eat a lot of red meat. But I still feel that we do our part, for the most part

[mintzilla]

I've lived here long enough to know the average Canadian does not give 1 **** about climate change.

F*** you, got mine should be the national slogan.

[LaGrandeOurse]

True for a portion of the population although the majority of Canadians don't really care about the climate change.
I never owned a car and never plan on having one even when I'll have kids and I'm trying to go zero waste. I will always live in an apartment/condo.

[MolsonExport]

Ah, kids....well, many of my best green intentions were subject to modification once they came along.

[drew]

I am heavy on the re-use part of the equation.

112 year old house
one 30 year old vehicle and one 17 year old vehicle.

Increasing energy efficiency is great (for cars, houses etc.) but it completely ignores the other energy costs associated with replacing these items - just to achieve said efficiency.

I will also admit that I generally couldn't give to much thought towards climate change.

[VANRIDERFAN]

So we are at 7 billion humans on earth and we are going to 10 billion by 2050?

Thats the problem right there.

Or maybe AI Robots will take care of that once they realize that humans are redundant.

[koops65]

Technology got us into this mess, and I'm hoping that even more advanced technology will get us out of it... that way I won't need to modify my lifestyle too much...

[Bandage]

I'm going to be completely honest. I love hauling a giant pile of junk to the dump.

[MolsonExport]

your point?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by koops65

Technology got us into this mess, and I'm hoping that even more advanced technology will get us out of it... that way I won't need to modify my lifestyle too much...

An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.

In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome. Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional judgment. . . ." Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the present article. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and, more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these. It is easy to show that the class is not a null class.

Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?" It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.

Science, 1968
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/...e_commons.html

[1overcosc]

I'd say my carbon footprint is fairly small. No car and I live in a jurisdiction with a very low carbon electric grid.

A lot of people bring up meat consumption as a factor, and while it does contribute to climate change, it's a much smaller cause than you'd think. Giving up your car will do way more for the planet than becoming a vegan.

Most people seem to think that their lifestyle will be made climate friendly with new technologies (like electric cars and more efficient appliances) and government policies (like decarbonizing electric grids), meaning they don't have to really do anything themselves. This is to some extent true, but it depends of course on how fast these new technologies and policies are adopted.

[WhipperSnapper]

Of course Canadians don't care. They brag about their k cup coffee machines. Buy their lunch in a convenient black plastic container (black isn't recyclable) and demand a bag to carry it in. We are stubborn to any change to reducing the little things whether it is accepting a paperless office or cutting out beef.

We pride ourselves on recycling but forget that recycling is actually the last resort to reducing and reusing.

[SignalHillHiker]

I'm torn... on one hand, Newfoundland and Labrador is quite green by global standards, especially in terms of the lifestyle of citizens - who use a fraction of the resources mainland Canadians and Americans use.

On the other hand, we're also an oil and gas jurisdiction - and are steadily increasing our production of fossil fuels. Just last week one of (some media say the) largest oil and gas projects in the world for 2017 was approved here.

So, I'm content with status quo. Even obscene amounts of sea level rise won't really impact Newfoundland because our cliffs are so steep. We can build two locks, one so narrow you could literally touch both sides with your hands outstretched at Quidi Vidi, and the other across the St. John's Narrows, which are easy to bridge. So we do that, and we can completely prevent even the worst case scenario of a 60-metre sea level rise.





And even if we don't do that, we lose relatively little area (though, of course, the best parts of the city would be gone).

So...? We're living responsibly. If no one else wants to, and the world dies for reasons our 500,000 people could never impact... have at it. Enjoy it. We'll be fine. I, in particular, would even have oceanside property suddenly. lol

I remember some documentary years ago that mentioned considering plate tectonics, Newfoundland would be one of the last places currently existing on the surface of the earth to disappear back into the mantle, if it ever did. Everything is temporary, but as the old folk song says, "the world will end at 12 o'clock but me missus says ain't that grand, sure we've got still a half hour left, we're in Newfoundland." We're clinging on to the bitter end.

[itom 987]

Canada stands to benefit immensely from climate change so I am not worried about the situation as much as people are in other parts of the world.

We do need to take care of the planet though.

[giallo]

^^Isn't NFLD by its very location not green? I'd think the majority of stuff you consume has to take long trips by freighter or airplane just to get there?

The rest of Canada is like this too though; mangos and pineapples in January, huge migration to southern locations in the winter, etc. Our climate (for the most part) in the country is so extreme that we almost have no choice but to contribute far more to climate change than any other developed nation.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by giallo

^^Isn't NFLD by its very location not green? I'd think the majority of stuff you consume has to take long trips by freighter or airplane just to get there?

The rest of Canada is like this too though; mangos and pineapples in January, huge migration to southern locations in the winter, etc. Our climate (for the most part) in the country is so extreme that we almost have no choice but to contribute far more to climate change than any other developed nation.

I was going to say....we don't have much of fingerprint on the island, but the very fact that pretty much all of our goods needs to take some combination of plane, boat, or semi-truck pretty much negates that.